More
9

It seems obvious right?
But it's not. It is a slang term that has no hard definition. It gets used very differently by different people.
I think most people more or less agree on the definition, but there are outliers who need it spelled out for them.

By posting a definition in the TOS or elsewhere, it could shut-down some unintentional spamming, and also makes the trolling a bit harder.
In past I have used this: "Spam being defined as irrelevant posts, chronic reposting, or advertising"
But due to some extreme retardation in past, I would add "Spam can take any form of message. Comments, posts, private messages, phone calls, smoke-signals, or other".

It seems obvious right? But it's not. It is a slang term that has no hard definition. It gets used very differently by different people. I think most people more or less agree on the definition, but there are outliers who need it spelled out for them. By posting a definition in the TOS or elsewhere, it could shut-down some unintentional spamming, and also makes the trolling a bit harder. In past I have used this: "*Spam being defined as irrelevant posts, chronic reposting, or advertising*" But due to some extreme retardation in past, I would add "*Spam can take any form of message. Comments, posts, private messages, phone calls, smoke-signals, or other*".

33 comments

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

There are plenty of dictionaries that define it

It is not a common definition. It tends to be vague, and varies.

I don't think unintentional spam is a real issue

No, but it's not unheard of. This is a simply a clarification that could potentially help in some cases, and isn't going to hurt anything.
[–] jidlaph 2 points (+2|-0)

isn't going to hurt anything.

That's where I disagree; I just see it devolving into rules-lawyerly nitpicking that wastes the time of everyone involved, which is all a troll really wants in the first place.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

I'm not suggesting a 'letter of the law' type of legal code.
The wording I suggested is pretty generalized. The point is to convey the idea of what the word means.
A definition of the 'spirit', not codified specifics.

rules-lawyerly nitpicking

I have always opposed that style of rule making. I prefer simple, but clear language that accurately imparts the meaning to a reasonable individual.

[–] jidlaph 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

I prefer simple, but clear language that accurately imparts the meaning to a reasonable individual.

I agree, I just feel like 'spam' already does that.

Edit:

I have always opposed that style of rule making.

It's the rule-breaking that would be at issue. If we start getting too specific, trolls will just work around the letter of the law until we 'patch' the exploit. Eventually we'll end up with the overly dense legalese we want to avoid, and when the trolls tire of that game they'll just ignore it.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae